“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[Rhea]

I love examining studies, and if I don’t believe them, I like to definitely pinpoint why they failed to be a good study. It’s like the NYT crossword for me, like finishing a 5000 piece jigsaw, like solving before Columbo can.

You know they always showed who did it in the opening scene, right?

I did not know that, or if I ever did, I forgot it. LOL. It will be so much easier now!!! LOL.

 

[peacegirl]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

No Rhea, that's not good enough. Proof is lacking. The studies don't lend themselves to the truth because the design is flawed. I'm asking you to give me videos of dogs that recognize their humans without any other cues.

He lost a lot of weight ==> his face looked very different. That is not a refutation. It agrees with one of the first posts in this thread about dogs' visual processing of faces.

Post#4001 (YIKES!!!) by DBT:

Their visual system is particularly attuned to certain facial features, such as:

• Eyes and eye movement
• Overall face shape and structure
• Changes in facial expressions
• Movement of key facial features

When you lose a lot of weight, your overall face shape changes significantly. Your cheeks become narrower, under your chin is lost fat.

What about the girl who came back from the service? She hadn't changed her weight. That's just another theory to support the idea that dogs can recognize their owner if the owner didn't change their appearance in some drastic way. More videos are needed then to prove whether this was the case or not. I'm sure the owner had a different smell from the hospital setting he was in, and all the medicines he took, but the dog recognized his smell immediately. Hmm.

 

[Rhea]

Written to steve_bank:

How can there be power struggles when there will be no more social and political factions and no more status quo?

Let's imagine the following hypothetical.

There is a small island nation of 20 people. Two people are psychopaths and 1 is a sociopath. Another person is a profound liar and very greedy. Yet another person is a pedophile. Among the rest of the population are 3 pre-pubescent children and regular folks of varying adult ages, IQ, and wealth. All persons, even the children, are literate.

You convince the government of this nation to let you go there to preach your father's words. The population is there and you read the book on a mount while everyone listens. Then, you hand each person a copy of the book on their way out.

Little did you realize that Trump and North Korea had a nuclear war while you did this and everyone is dead on the planet except for you and the islanders.

What are the next three major events that will happen due to the new world's population receiving the words of your father?

Show this mathematically.

It doesn't work like that because people who are sociopaths, liars, and greedy are not going to suddenly become honest people. Those who have done others wrong will still need to be held accountable to prevent them from repeating their misdeeds, but, in time, the desire to cause harm to others will be superseded by the desire not to, which can be proven. People can't even imagine a world of peace and brotherhood, considering the world we live in, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just keep that in mind before you jeer at me.

You are waiving a magic wand and claiming sociopaths will choose to not exist?
And this “can be proven” ???


Great! So excited!
Please present this proof, or the experimental design that will prove it.

SURELY you have this information already if you are claiming that it can be proven.

 

[peacegirl]

Written to Rhea:

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Your request isn't very smart. Dogs rely on smell, hearing, sight--and all of the senses as do humans. In order to show how much a dog relies on sight in recognition of its owner, you have to isolate sight from those other potentially confounding variables. That means a NON-real-life observation, it means apply the scientific method to isolate the variable. This is the third time I am posting this link:

The look of love – dogs recognise their owner’s faces - Hanne Grice Pet Training & Behaviour

A new study led by the University of Padua in Italy has shown how much dogs rely on seeing their owners’ faces in order to recognise them. The study also measured how much dogs prefer to gaze at and follow their owners, rather than a stranger. This latest research reported in the latest Animal...

www.hannegrice.com

Why are you changing the goalposts? This is not about facial expressions. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is.

Why are you changing the subject to "facial expressions?"

In the first part of the experiment, Dr Mongillo’s team had a dog in an empty room and instructed the owner and another person who was unfamiliar to the dog, to walk across the room several times. The people crossed the room in opposite directions, so that they passed the dog repeatedly. The researchers measured how long the dog looked at one person versus another. The team then instructed the two people to leave the room through two doors and allowed the dog to approach one of the doors. Dr Mongillo said: “Most of the dogs gazed at their owners for most of the time and then chose to wait by the owner’s door.”

In the second part of this study, the researchers asked the people to cover their faces, and then the volunteers walked across the room with bags over their heads. During this part of the experiment, the dogs’ gaze was less attracted to their owners, revealing just how much dogs rely on human faces for recognition.

Why can't they videotape these experiments? It's so much easier to see what's going on than to just take their word for it.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

That's not what I'm doing, though. It's very difficult when no one has read the book. It was really crazy to think that I could get across these principles in a forum that discusses philosophers they have carefully read and then debated.

You know, it is NOT difficult when no one has read your book. All you have to do it explain it. You have had 60 years to figure out how to explain it without the dramatic obfuscation that exists in your book(s). In this debate you have had 400+ pages to figure out how to explain it. IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT YOURSELF.

The debates on this forum do not always occur among people who have read the specific philosopher. The debater is obliged to be the presenter, not the book. The debater is obliged to bring the ideas, and discuss them.

If yu understand these works, you should be able to do it.

Everyone here BUT YOU has been willing to rephrase, create diagrams, bring external studies in to discuss with synopses of each.

You think you don’t have to? Why? What is so above-it-all about you?

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

I am not just walking away but people seem to be waiting for me to concede, and I'm not going to. I believe he was right, and until he is proven wrong, I will stand by him. NO ONE HAS PROVEN HIM WRONG.

So, you may have notiuced that people here have presented evidence that they claim to prove him wrong, with mechanisms and how it works.

Except you. You just say “Nope! Not that stone!” And think you have proved something.
Yu have not. You need to discuss the mechanisms in order to defend your thesis.

This is how it works - you bring an idea, we all test it and bring the results. You say “no!” And we look at the test results and it harms your credibility that you did not address the tests in a meaningful way.

This is your choice, of course, but it does not prevent the proof from having been presented.
And your father having been to shown to have
1. Made a claim
2. Had that claim tested
3. Had everyone to see that the claim did not survive the test

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

I haven't seen that. Could you post it again?

When an experimenter’s expectations, behavior, or subtle cues unintentionally affect the outcome of an experiment, it is most commonly called experimenter bias (also known as observer-expectancy effect, observer bias, or experimenter effect) Wikipedia+1.

Yes, I understand experimenter bias. I know how to design experiments with randomization and double blind execution to avoid it.

But you have to point to the part of the experiment that contained experimenter bias if you want to claim that flaw. You don’t get to credibly just say “experimenter bias exists!” And have that be the reason to refuse to understand that your father’s claim was proved wrong.

That’s not how this works.
Name the part of the experiment where it occurred, in order to be honest in your dismissal.

​

 

[Rhea]

In the first part of the experiment, Dr Mongillo’s team had a dog in an empty room and instructed the owner and another person who was unfamiliar to the dog, to walk across the room several times. The people crossed the room in opposite directions, so that they passed the dog repeatedly. The researchers measured how long the dog looked at one person versus another. The team then instructed the two people to leave the room through two doors and allowed the dog to approach one of the doors. Dr Mongillo said: “Most of the dogs gazed at their owners for most of the time and then chose to wait by the owner’s door.”

In the second part of this study, the researchers asked the people to cover their faces, and then the volunteers walked across the room with bags over their heads. During this part of the experiment, the dogs’ gaze was less attracted to their owners, revealing just how much dogs rely on human faces for recognition.

Why can't they videotape these experiments? It's so much easier to see what's going on than to just take their word for it.

They probably did. But they don’t always publish it. But maybe they didn’t. They took notes, and published their peer reviewed findings, not caring that a person with no scientific understanding who believes that the human brain can detect an image before the light arrives at their eyes wouldn’t believe them unless she could watch herself.

 

[peacegirl]

Written to steve_bank:

How can there be power struggles when there will be no more social and political factions and no more status quo?

Let's imagine the following hypothetical.

There is a small island nation of 20 people. Two people are psychopaths and 1 is a sociopath. Another person is a profound liar and very greedy. Yet another person is a pedophile. Among the rest of the population are 3 pre-pubescent children and regular folks of varying adult ages, IQ, and wealth. All persons, even the children, are literate.

You convince the government of this nation to let you go there to preach your father's words. The population is there and you read the book on a mount while everyone listens. Then, you hand each person a copy of the book on their way out.

Little did you realize that Trump and North Korea had a nuclear war while you did this and everyone is dead on the planet except for you and the islanders.

What are the next three major events that will happen due to the new world's population receiving the words of your father?

Show this mathematically.

It doesn't work like that because people who are sociopaths, liars, and greedy are not going to suddenly become honest people. Those who have done others wrong will still need to be held accountable to prevent them from repeating their misdeeds, but, in time, the desire to cause harm to others will be superseded by the desire not to, which can be proven. People can't even imagine a world of peace and brotherhood, considering the world we live in, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just keep that in mind before you jeer at me.

You are waiving a magic wand and claiming sociopaths will choose to not exist?
And this “can be proven” ???


Great! So excited!
Please present this proof, or the experimental design that will prove it.

Rhea, this is his entire discovery. You cannot expect me to chop it up in a sentence or two. I know you won't read it because you would have already. I won't meet you more than your willingness to meet me halfway.

SURELY you have this information already if you are claiming that it can be proven.

Do you know the meaning of nurture versus nature? You are making an assumption that sociopaths and psychopaths are born this way, sort of like the evil child. I do believe people have predispositions and will act out differently to different environmental triggers, but when the environment doesn't lend itself to justified anger or retaliation, the genetic expression of these behaviors will be suppressed.

The Bad Seed (1985)

A single mother discovers the horrifying truth that within her seemingly angelic young daughter beats the heart of a cold-blooded serial murderer.

tubitv.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

Every page where I am responding.

Here is the bottom of the page where you just responding a few seconds ago. That link is not present at the bottom of the page. If you are typo'ing and mean "post" instead of page, it is not at the bottom of the post either.

 

[Rhea]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

Every page where I am responding.

Every “POST” where you are responding.

Words have meaning.

 

[Rhea]

I want to see the experiment for myself. That's what bilby keeps insisting on, to see something with one's own eyes. So why is this wrong?

Bilby is not insisting on that. he is insisting on a rigorous description and explanation of the mechanism

If you will only believe experiments that you can see for yourself, you probably don’t need to wear a seatbelt or avoid smoking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

Every page where I am responding.

Every “POST” where you are responding.

Words have meaning.

Oh, okay. Yeah, my profile ignores signatures for some reason and I did not even know that until I just went through the settings. I wouldn't expect everyone in the forum to have that feature enabled either...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Rhea:

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

Your request isn't very smart. Dogs rely on smell, hearing, sight--and all of the senses as do humans. In order to show how much a dog relies on sight in recognition of its owner, you have to isolate sight from those other potentially confounding variables. That means a NON-real-life observation, it means apply the scientific method to isolate the variable. This is the third time I am posting this link:

The look of love – dogs recognise their owner’s faces - Hanne Grice Pet Training & Behaviour

A new study led by the University of Padua in Italy has shown how much dogs rely on seeing their owners’ faces in order to recognise them. The study also measured how much dogs prefer to gaze at and follow their owners, rather than a stranger. This latest research reported in the latest Animal...

www.hannegrice.com

Why are you changing the goalposts? This is not about facial expressions. Please stick to the topic. This discussion is hard enough as it is.

Why are you changing the subject to "facial expressions?"

In the first part of the experiment, Dr Mongillo’s team had a dog in an empty room and instructed the owner and another person who was unfamiliar to the dog, to walk across the room several times. The people crossed the room in opposite directions, so that they passed the dog repeatedly. The researchers measured how long the dog looked at one person versus another. The team then instructed the two people to leave the room through two doors and allowed the dog to approach one of the doors. Dr Mongillo said: “Most of the dogs gazed at their owners for most of the time and then chose to wait by the owner’s door.”

In the second part of this study, the researchers asked the people to cover their faces, and then the volunteers walked across the room with bags over their heads. During this part of the experiment, the dogs’ gaze was less attracted to their owners, revealing just how much dogs rely on human faces for recognition.

Why can't they videotape these experiments? It's so much easier to see what's going on than to just take their word for it.

That's conspiratorial.

 

[Rhea]

Written to steve_bank:

How can there be power struggles when there will be no more social and political factions and no more status quo?

Let's imagine the following hypothetical.

There is a small island nation of 20 people. Two people are psychopaths and 1 is a sociopath. Another person is a profound liar and very greedy. Yet another person is a pedophile. Among the rest of the population are 3 pre-pubescent children and regular folks of varying adult ages, IQ, and wealth. All persons, even the children, are literate.

You convince the government of this nation to let you go there to preach your father's words. The population is there and you read the book on a mount while everyone listens. Then, you hand each person a copy of the book on their way out.

Little did you realize that Trump and North Korea had a nuclear war while you did this and everyone is dead on the planet except for you and the islanders.

What are the next three major events that will happen due to the new world's population receiving the words of your father?

Show this mathematically.

It doesn't work like that

You said it could be shown mathematically. Or, Lessans did.

Is that a lie?
Did your father lie about it being able to be shown mathematically?
Next edition you publish of this book, you should remove that claim, I guess.

because people who are sociopaths, liars, and greedy are not going to suddenly become honest people. Those who have done others wrong will still need to be held accountable to prevent them from repeating their misdeeds, but, in time, the desire to cause harm to others will be superseded by the desire not to, which can be proven. People can't even imagine a world of peace and brotherhood, considering the world we live in, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just keep that in mind before you jeer at me.

You are waiving a magic wand and claiming sociopaths will choose to not exist?
And this “can be proven” ???


Great! So excited!
Please present this proof, or the experimental design that will prove it.

Rhea, this is his entire discovery. You cannot expect me to chop it up in a sentence or two.

I absolutely do.
You say it can be proven. Present the method by which it can be proven.
I’ve very excited about this

I know you won't read it because you would have already. I won't meet you more than your willingness to meet me halfway.

You know, I went looking for this book you link. Saw the reviews that “this is his 5th attempt at getting people to accept his ideas” and I looked at the earlier books. I realized that one of them, “The Secret” was given to me years ago by some friend or relative with the admonition, “you’ve got to read this, it seems so important!” And they gave me a copy.

I read a lot of it. I tried to finish. But it was so fatally flawed that it could not deliver a reproducible test result. It was a mess of trying to use words and fabricated definitions to sell a philosophical idea trying to dress itself as science.

Best I could tell them was, “this book does not support itself, logically.”

SURELY you have this information already if you are claiming that it can be proven.

Do you know the meaning of nurture versus nature?

Yes.

You are making an assumption that sociopaths and psychopaths are born this way, sort of like the evil child. I do believe people have predispositions and will act out differently to different environmental triggers, but when the environment doesn't lend itself to justified anger or retaliation, the genetic expression of these behaviors will be suppressed.

The Bad Seed (1985)

A single mother discovers the horrifying truth that within her seemingly angelic young daughter beats the heart of a cold-blooded serial murderer.

tubitv.com

A link to a movie?

I believe that many sociopaths and psychopaths (as well as other behavioral disorders) are created by their environment. But not all. And sometimes the harm that leads to sociopathy is not the bad behavior of others, but simple, unintended trauma.

It exists. I agree that we could reduce it, namely by eschewing punishment as a social weapon. But we cannot eliminate it, and so some people will need to be put into protective custody to minimize the harm.


But back to your claim:
You claimed it can be proven.
Please explain how it can be proven.

I’m not asking you to show the proof, I’m asking you to explain how the proof would be carried out.

SURELY you know this proof descripotion, if you are claiming it can be proven. Surely you are not claiming something can be proven with no idea how to do it????

 

[Rhea]

Oh, okay. Yeah, my profile ignores signatures for some reason and I did not even know that until I just went through the settings. I wouldn't expect everyone in the forum to have that feature enabled either...

That is true. It is easy to turn off any many people do because of the crap some folks put in their sig lines including offensive slurs that a reasonable person would want to avoid.

 

[bilby]

Your posts are way too long and convoluted. If you have something to say, get to the point without an entire chapter to explain it.

Pot, meet kettle.

You're asking me questions as if I can explain a 600-page book in one sentence. These discoveries take time to understand. They can't be explained in a few sentences, or the book will lose its meaning.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Rhea:

Do you know the meaning of nurture versus nature? You are making an assumption that sociopaths and psychopaths are born this way, sort of like the evil child. I do believe people have predispositions and will act out differently to different environmental triggers, but when the environment doesn't lend itself to justified anger or retaliation, the genetic expression of these behaviors will be suppressed.

Since I had recently mentioned a small island nation with a couple of psychopaths, I figured I would respond to this post. You are assuming a couple of things here. Scientists estimate that psychopathy is about 50% heritable and sociopathy is 50%-80% heritable. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption by you that when a thing is 50% heritable, it means the remaining portion has to be supplemented by environmental triggers for each and every individual. It could be instead that up to 50% of people inherit the trait without any environmental trigger. Personally, I think it's a distribution where some might not have triggers and others have triggers. Secondly, that when something is only partially heritable that that means precisely that environmental triggers would be absent in your view of a utopia--they might not be. For example, seeing a potential victim could be a trigger and by that I mean there could be some triggers in theory that seem quite innocuous and for a normal brain having read Lessans they might not be a trigger to do bad things, but for different brain chemistries they might work differently than that. Thirdly, there is an assumption that merely learning one does not have free will and the other Lessans teachings will not "lend itself to justified anger or retaliation."*

*Note that the third assumption is counterfactual. For some examples, I offer for the objective observer to read this thread and watch for anger that followers of Lessans feel is justified. All of those instances are counterexamples to the third assumption. Therefore it is false. Merely learning Lessans' teachings does not stop anger that a person feels is justified nor retaliation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to steve_bank:

How can there be power struggles when there will be no more social and political factions and no more status quo?

Let's imagine the following hypothetical.

There is a small island nation of 20 people. Two people are psychopaths and 1 is a sociopath. Another person is a profound liar and very greedy. Yet another person is a pedophile. Among the rest of the population are 3 pre-pubescent children and regular folks of varying adult ages, IQ, and wealth. All persons, even the children, are literate.

You convince the government of this nation to let you go there to preach your father's words. The population is there and you read the book on a mount while everyone listens. Then, you hand each person a copy of the book on their way out.

Little did you realize that Trump and North Korea had a nuclear war while you did this and everyone is dead on the planet except for you and the islanders.

What are the next three major events that will happen due to the new world's population receiving the words of your father?

Show this mathematically.

Before I respond to your specifics, my post did not make assumptions you have started with. I simply asked you for the next 3 major events and to show them mathematically.

It doesn't work like that because people who are sociopaths, liars, and greedy are not going to suddenly become honest people.

Indeed. And because those people are not going to change, they are going to create more traumas to people around them. Those traumas will create additional problems. And other people born will be born with issues (and predispositions at birth) and imperfect environments because of those traumas passed through other people. Both nature and nurture continue.

Those who have done others wrong will still need to be held accountable to prevent them from repeating their misdeeds,

So consequences are needed in the new world for prevention of recidivism.

but, in time, the desire to cause harm to others will be superseded by the desire not to, which can be proven.

Okay, since you didn't answer the first challenge, I'll give you a second chance. Show the math for this claim.

People can't even imagine a world of peace and brotherhood, considering the world we live in, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just keep that in mind before you jeer at me.

I can imagine all sorts of things, but this is your claim, so you supply the mathematical proof.

 

[bilby]

Pood, it's right there at the bottom of my page, free of charge.

Which page do you mean?

My page on this thread. The link is at the bottom.

I don't know what you're talking about.

What do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Here is the link.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

But you kept saying it was at the bottom of the page. I was asking what page you were talking about.

Every page where I am responding.

Every “POST” where you are responding.

Words have meaning.

Oh, okay. Yeah, my profile ignores signatures for some reason and I did not even know that until I just went through the settings. I wouldn't expect everyone in the forum to have that feature enabled either...

I have signatures disabled, and expect that many others do too - they are basically spam, cluttering up the page with repetititive text that adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[DBT]

Rhea, I am not going through this garbage again. The tests that you are depending on have flaws. Aceept it, or move on. Show me a dog that can recognize his human in a real-life observation. These studies mean shit if they can't back it up.

See for me, because testing things to determine if they are real is what I am paid to do, in order to develop equipment and processes that can reliably repeat the effect and make money for someone…. (I am not merely an evangelist preaching an idea and telling people they need to accept it if they want to be saved—it has to actually work!)

If I see something that doesn’t work, I can say WHY it doesn’t work.

But you don’t. You just walk away.

Which… I gotta say is not very convincing of you. I’d be bad at my job of understanding mechanisms if I did that. I’d fire someone who did that, actually. It’s not productive or illuminating.

What about those studies is flawed?
The fact that they used pictures to see if dogs could identify their humans without smell or sound? Just as you claimed could not be done?

No Rhea, that's not good enough. Proof is lacking. The studies don't lend themselves to the truth because the design is flawed. I'm asking you to give me videos of dogs that recognize their humans without any other cues.

He lost a lot of weight ==> his face looked very different. That is not a refutation. It agrees with one of the first posts in this thread about dogs' visual processing of faces.

Post#4001 (YIKES!!!) by DBT:

Their visual system is particularly attuned to certain facial features, such as:

• Eyes and eye movement
• Overall face shape and structure
• Changes in facial expressions
• Movement of key facial features

When you lose a lot of weight, your overall face shape changes significantly. Your cheeks become narrower, under your chin is lost fat.

What about the girl who came back from the service? She hadn't changed her weight. That's just another theory to support the idea that dogs can recognize their owner if the owner didn't change their appearance in some drastic way. More videos are needed then to prove whether this was the case or not. I'm sure the owner had a different smell from the hospital setting he was in, and all the medicines he took, but the dog recognized his smell immediately. Hmm.

Just because some dogs are not as good at remembering faces doesn't mean that dogs cannot recognize or remember faces.

That some dogs have trouble doesn’t negate the ability in the species.

There are humans who literally cannot recognize faces. Does that mean that humans cannot recognize faces?

That is the mistake you are making.

 

[peacegirl]

A clock's time can slow down or speed up due to a change

This is the kind of vague-posting that doesn’t advance your ideas at all. You dismiss wihtout a clear reason. Just vague “change”.

What kind of change? What mechanism are you proposing?

We’ve been doing all the work here.
For example, do you mean a clock’s spring getting weak? Do you mean a battery aging? Obviously science has excellent ways to control for that, such as using molecular oscillations to set the clock incredibly precisely. We also have MSAs and Gauge R&Rs to make sure our clocks are providing precision.

Or did you mean some other kind of change that you couldn’t be bothered to articulate because you didn’t think precision was important?

You advance nothing, and it leaves the rest of us concluding, “she does not know how to achieve repeatability at all.”

I am reacting to arguments that Lessans has to be wrong regarding real-time vision. It wasn't necessary for him to get into all these subjects to prove whether he was right because, once again, his claim did not come from astronomy. It came closer to Earth. When I said that a clock's time can slow down or speed up due to change, we know that the atomic clocks run slower or faster depending on special relativity. But this does not prove that time itself bends or is not absolute WHEN TIME IS JUST AN INDICATION OF CHANGE FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT. How can time bend when time is not a thing? I don't want to get into Einstein's theories because that is not my expertise. The fact that gravity influences clocks is not part of Lessans' claim, and I don't think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. The train example that Pood brings up shows that different observers' frames of reference affect the timing of what these observers see regarding when they see the lightning strike, but this does not indicate that we actually see in delayed time since time itself is not a dimension.

Light Clock Thought Experiment in Relativity and Time​

The light clock thought experiment is the simplest and most intuitive way to understand how relativity and time interact at high speeds. Imagine a clock made of two parallel mirrors with a single photon bouncing straight up and down between them. Each round trip of the photon represents one "tick" of time. For an observer at rest relative to the clock, the photon travels a short vertical distance, producing a consistent and predictable ticking rate.

When that same light clock moves horizontally at a high speed, the situation changes dramatically for an outside observer. Instead of traveling straight up and down, the photon traces a diagonal path because the clock itself is moving forward while the light travels. This diagonal motion increases the total distance the photon must travel between ticks. Since the speed of light is constant for all observers, the only way to account for the longer path is for more time to pass between ticks.